Granted, but if I declare a Mayday because I'm low on fuel, it may reasonably be regarded as a "fuel emergency" even if that's not the approved terminology. You do not I believe declare a mayday, you declare an emergency using the word "mayday".
Incidentally reading the report, there are a few things that don't seem to quite make sense and give me a little more sympathy for the pilot.
(1) He reported one gauge reading ¼ and the other reading ½ - even for a light aircraft fuel gauge that is a bit more than mild inaccuracy - that is unserviceable.
(2) What I'd heard on the rumour mill was clearly incorrect, the report does show that he reported an emergency - albeit an engine one, but subsequent pilot and ATC actions would be similar in each case and if he was indicating ¼ tank+ and the engine was faltering, entirely understandable.
(3) The pilot, who didn't have all that many hours and very few on type, had been taught to use a rule-of-thumb in his fuel planning that assumed LOWER fuel burn than was given in the POH for available cruise speeds. Whatever instructor taught that might usefully, it could be argued, be shot. Slowly.
(4) Aparently the operator didn't provide a fuel dipstick, which I'd have thought was standard for a low wing light aircraft in this class.
Ultimately however, the chap wasn't familiar with the POH data on cruise and fuel consumption - or at-least hadn't used it in his flight planning. Any pilot failing to use data available to them in that way deserves criticism - but reading the report in full, it doesn't read like a prosecution case to me.
It strikes me that the pilots biggest failing however, as reported in the AAIB report was failing to stay within glide range of the runway when he'd had what appeared initially to be an engine fault whilst joining overhead.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 2nd September 2003 at 21:17.